Middle to Late Fort Ancient Society
(and some of its neat products)
Archaeologists are able to study pre-historic cultures based on materials that are collected during excavation. Some materials and their contexts help in the recreation of past social organization. Materials such as beads, ornaments, and other objects might indicate that people of a past culture had different ranks (or status) within their society, especially if such artifacts are found as grave goods (objects that are buried with a person) in only a select number of burials. It is through the context of such items and from the evidence for the post-mortem treatment of certain individuals that archaeologists are able to offer rough interpretations on the social dynamics of pre-historic cultures.
It is thought that Middle to Late Fort Ancient societies were organized into groups (specifically tribes) based on kinship (how people are related, either through birth or marriage) (Pollack and Henderson 1992). If social organization revolved around kinship, then it is likely that one's status was the result of personal qualities such as sharing/giving, being a good hunter or food provider, charisma, et cetera. Occasionally, one person might achieve high status. Such high-status people were probably leaders of communities and were potentially responsible for organizing trade, for settling disputes among other members of the village, and for presiding over ceremonies (Pollack and Henderson 1992).
Although individuals might have risen to the status of leader, Middle to Late Fort Ancient culture appears to have been egalitarian. Social levels appear to have been weakly defined and status differences between individuals were not extensive (Sharp 1996). The lack of a strict social distinction in Fort Ancient society is visible in the fact that grave goods rarely vary between individuals (Sharp 1996). The objects in this exhibit were not found with burials, but what can they indicate? Did these items belong to the leader of this village? Or did they belong to other members of the village? Were they acquired by trade or were they made and used by the same person?
Beads and pendants
Figure 1. Beads made from mussel shell.
Figure 2. Shell beads and drilled shell.
Figure 3. Bird bone beads and bear claw.
Bird bones were also used to make beads. Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) appears to have been the most frequent source of bone for bird-bone probably because turkey are relatively large birds with relatively dense, sturdy bones. The cut edges of bone were polished and rounded and these bones were mostly used to create bone beads like those shown in
Figure 3.
Pendants were often made out of cannel coal (a fine-grained form of coal produced from the compaction of plant spores). Cannel coal was often carved into crescent shapes, called bear claws (Figure 3 and 4). Other pendants were more elaborately carved and polished (the far left pendant in Figure 4). Occasionally, bear claw pendants are found without drilled holes (Figure 5). Is the example in Figure 5 an unfinished pendant or was it used for something else?
Figure 4. Cannel Coal pendants
and bear claws.
Figure 5. Bear claw, stone bead,
and carved bone.
Stone was also polished and drilled to make beads or pendants (Figure 5, bottom left). The purpose of the carved bone in Figure 5 is unknown. It might have been a small pendant or it might have been used for a purpose completely unrelated to ornamentation.
Fort Ancient people also sculpted effigies out of clay (Figure 6). These effigies were tempered with mussel shell and were fired (baked at high temperatures) just like pottery jars and vessels. These effigies represent various animals and birds. What types of birds can you see in Figure 6? Turkey? Duck? Do you see a bear effigy? Effigies were sometimes used as "rim-riders" on pottery jars and vessels (Henderson et. al. 1992). What purpose did such decoration serve? Did an effigy on a pottery vessel indicate something about its use? Was it ceremonial or just decorative?
Figure 6. Clay effigies.
Figure 7. Unfinished ground
quartzite pipe bowls.
Pipes were also made by Fort Ancient people from either clay or ground stone. The bowl of the pipe in Figure 7 is half completed and the hole where the pipe would be inserted has just been started. The production of pipes included weeks of grinding and polishing. Why was the pipe bowl in Figure 7 not finished? Did the maker lose interest or not have time? Did the maker trade for a finished pipe? What caused the pipe maker not to finish what had already cost him/her so much hard work?
Chunkee
Fort Ancient people enjoyed leisure activities and games, one of which was the game of chunkee. Chunkee was a game that the Fort Ancient people presumably adopted from Mississippian culture to the south and west of the Ohio River Valley. It is thought that plaza areas in villages were used as playing fields where this ritual sport was played using smoothed rounded stones. These stones, called discoidals, (Figure 8) were disk-shaped with concave surfaces made from various stone and pottery (Potter 1986). Historic Indians rolled identical objects on the ground and then threw their spears at them as a test of accuracy. The person whose spear landed the closest to the discoidal or knocked it over was the winner (Potter, 1986). The carved shell gorget below depicts a chunkee player.
Figure 8. Chunkee discoidals.
Figure 9. Chunkee player (Lewis 1996).